They have these cartoon skits that are absolutely hilarious. The one 'Big Box Mart' addresses our 'buy American' topic. The one 'This Land' was made just before the 2004 election and it is great - especially where Howard Dean screams.
For me, buying American means buying from one of the traditional domestics
This is the key phrase am I right? You would prefer to give your money to the Chrysler division of Daimler rather than to a transplant which is not 'traditional'.
I know parts content comes in to play too, but my next thought is where will the profit from my sale go ?
Profit? Since all the major automakers are publicly traded on the NYSE the profit goes back to you and me the shareholders. DC, Toyota, Honda all their profits go into the funds in my 401k. GM/F used to until I rearranged the composition of the funds .... as did the funds themselves. Consider this weird situation, if you choose to give your money to a traditional GM/F you are continuing to pay up to $1500/vehicle to a retiree or non-working able-bodied UAW member - or both - here. But since GM/F make no profit none of this money comes back to you. If you purchase a DC/T/H which do make a profit, some of this comes back to you in an increase in the value of your holdings. So do you wish to pay someone else or yourself? It's your money.
Here is reality. It is one large international market. Just pick the winning companies and profit from their success.
BTW over the last 10 years there has been no loss of employment in the NA auto industry. It's remained steady. Want more figures? They are readily available on other forums/posts. Actually we here are doing incredibly well notwithstanding the gloom and doomers, the 'Oh poor me's'
I think you completely missed my point and only took out of my post what you could use for the sake of your own arguement.
True, I buy only from traditional domestics, is there a problem with that ? They have provided me with good cars at a very good value for years, it works for me O.K. ? I don't buy into the Toyota is better arguement.
I have never bought a vehicle made in Mexico, so you're analysis doesn't apply to my post, at least as far as I'm concerned.
You skipped the fact that my last three vehicle purchases are all cars produced on U.S. soil, so I haven't purchased goods made outside the U.S. as you attempt to imply.
The trade deficit is created by that giant sucking sound of cash (that's American dollars) that are leaving this country each and every day. It's just not cars, it's a whole lot of stuff, we all know that.
Is a trade deficit good for our country ? No, it's not.
Will a trade deficit eventually hurt our economy in the long run if it's not balanced out ? Yes, it will.
All I'm saying is I try to be conscious of what impact my consumer spending has on the economy. We're addicted to cheap foreign goods here in the USA, and it's costing us big time in jobs, pay, benefits, etc. especially here in the mid-west.
I can't change all that by myself, but it makes me feel good to seek out and buy American made products wherever and whenever I can. Sometimes it costs me more, but I don't care.
I completely understand what compromises a trade deficit, and it's up to the American consumer to change that with their spending habits. That's the part the majority of American's don't understand.
I completely understand what compromises a trade deficit, and it's up to the American consumer to change that with their spending habits. That's the part the majority of American's don't understand
You would definitely advise against buying the Fusion, all Volvo's, Aveo's, Jags and LR's ( none built in the US )in favor of the Odyssey, Sonata and Tundra ( all built in the US ). In agreement? I am.
The question is "buying American cars, what does it mean ?"
Like I said in the very first sentence of my original post, it means something different for each and every one of us.
I think that I've been clear right from the start, that for me, it's buying from the two remaining traditional domestics only (i.e.; Ford and GM), cars made on U.S. soil.
All of you that have replied seem to want to imply that there is something wrong with that ? I won't apologize for preferring to buy Chevy's or Ford's made here in the U.S. It's what I do, and I'm not about to change my mind just because Toyota or Honda builds a plant here and employ's American's to make their cars.
If the U.S. made Accord / Camry / Tundra and others work for you, I say go for it ! To each their own. Can I be any clearer than that ?
True, I buy only from traditional domestics, is there a problem with that ?
It is a problem IF your goal is to reduce the trade deficit, which is what you claimed your goal to be.
I have never bought a vehicle made in Mexico, so you're analysis doesn't apply to my post, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough, but do keep in mind that Ford and GM are making cars in Mexico. If you care about the trade deficit, then it would be wise to make sure that you advise that people avoid buying the large number of vehicles they build outside the US.
All I'm saying is I try to be conscious of what impact my consumer spending has on the economy. We're addicted to cheap foreign goods here in the USA, and it's costing us big time in jobs, pay, benefits, etc. especially here in the mid-west.
That's fine, in which case I would tell you that buying an Ohio-made Accord with 70% domestic content than would be buying, for example, a PT Cruiser with 65% domestic content. Perhaps you wouldn't buy the PT Cruiser, either -- just don't kid yourself into thinking that it would be a more "American" choice than would be a Honda made in Ohio.
Again, if you care about the trade deficit and jobs, it shouldn't matter where the company is headquartered, just so long as it employs Americans and the maker uses American content. Simply going for the Big 2.5 for the sake of it otherwise makes no sense.
Further, if you really care about the trade deficit, you may as well bet on the company with the best prospects for exporting the production they make in the US. We all know that Honda is more than happy to export US-made cars abroad, whereas the Big 2.5 have trouble building cars that many people outside of the US are going to want to buy.
So frankly, if your prime concern is the trade deficit, I'd be supporting Honda, one company which is happy to hire Americans, happy to use American-made parts and more capable than are the behemoths in Dearborn and Detroit of building a car worthy of export.
bmk32: think that I've been clear right from the start, that for me, it's buying from the two remaining traditional domestics only (i.e.; Ford and GM), cars made on U.S. soil.
All of you that have replied seem to want to imply that there is something wrong with that ? I won't apologize for preferring to buy Chevy's or Ford's made here in the U.S.
You should never apologize for buying what you like. But then, neither should anyone who buys, say, a Nissan.
The bigger problem is that just because a vehicle sports a bowtie or blue oval does NOT mean that it was made in the U.S.A., or that even most of its parts were made here. The Ford Fusion (a car that I really like) is made in Mexico. The Chevy Equinox uses an engine made in China. The Honda Accord is made in Ohio. Which is more "American?" Looking at the badges on the hood and trunk are not a reliable indicator as to whether the vehicle is made here.
As for the "what-matters-is-where-the-money-goes" argument - Honda and Toyota are increasing their engineering and design facilities in the United States, and sourcing more components from American-based suppliers.
In other words, they are using their profits to increase their American presence.
Ford and GM are relying on platforms designed and engineered by their overseas affiliates. They are moving production out of this country, and pressuring their suppliers to do the same.
In other words, they are outsourcing production and design to overseas locations as fast as they can.
I will apologize for getting you distracted and fixated on the deficit, that's my fault, I started it. I can tell by your post(s) that I won't change your mind, but then again, you won't change mine either ! Here's some food for thought from the other side though, I hope you can understand some of it.
Automotive News 04/25/05 announcement on industry employment:
Big 3 job cuts since 2000: 130,394 ▼
Non-big 3 jobs added since 2000: 27,183 ▲
For every one transplant job added in the US, nearly five jobs are eliminated
Foxnews: Trade Deficit Hits All-Time High [03/05] "... but private economists are worried that the huge level of resources being transferred into the hands of foreigners will eventually result in lower U.S. livinsg standards ... the deficit represents the amount in resources that the United States is transferring into the hands of foreigners in exchange for foreign oil, cars and other products that Americans are purchasing."
Foxnews: Trade Deficit Hits $58.3 Billion in January [02/05] "The U.S. trade deficit climbed to $58.3 billion in January, the second-highest level in history, as Americans' appetite for foreign consumer products and automobiles hit record highs. However, imports rose at an even faster pace of 1.9 percent in January, climbing to an all-time high of $159.1 billion. Imports of foreign cars and auto parts and consumer goods set records while imports of capital goods, everything from computers to airplanes, rose to the highest level in more than four years."
Motor Trend Letters to the Editor: Eat My Lunch
Toyota's emergence as the world automotive financial powerhouse is symptomatic of an underlying U.S. problem that'll leave all Americans poorer. Americans have been brainwashed to believe there are no consequences for buying imported products, especially if those products are assembled here. Sending $50 billion a month in trade deficit to foreign companies will sooner or later have consequences. The U.S. is on a path to high inflation and low purchasing power. Toyota isn't just eating GM's lunch. It's eating your lunch and my lunch. Are we smart enough to care? Max Limpert - Fort Wayne, Indiana
I'm not a genuis, no sir, I'm just an ordinary Joe. But I think I get it, and that's one of the many reasons that I only buy American cars. To learn more, visit;
I disagree but I will defend to the death your right to believe
Your (4) points:
Point #1 My post #652 From the NYTimes article today:
Ford Eliminating Up to 30,000 Jobs and 14 Factories
quote: "Because of their growth, there has been no net loss in American automotive jobs over the last 10 years, according to James P. Womack, an author and specialist in manufacturing efficiency. Auto industry employment has held steady at about 1.1 million workers, including those at parts companies, he said.
Further: My post #692 1985 N.A. Auto/Light Truck production: 11,360,000 units 2005 N.A. Auto/Light Truck production: 15,788,000 units ( sources provided if requested )
In 20 years the auto industry production has grown by 39%. This is hardly an industry in the throes of death. It's pretty damn vibrant if you ask me.!!
So much for a dying industry.
Your points #2 & 3 You keep bringing up this deficit question but some of the worst offenders are your two champion companies. Is it OK for them to import Aveo's from Korea, engines from China and entire vehicles from Mexico? Not to mention Saabs, Land Rovers, Volvo's and Jags. Bad idea to keep coming back to this issue.
Your point #4 One view from someone who is '..not a genius, no sir, I'm just an ordinary Joe.' Whose view is perfectly reasonable if it is he and his family affected. But there are thousands of people in TX, AL, TN and maybe soon MI who would beg to differ and they are just 'ordinary Joe's' too.
You are entitled for sure to hold onto your belief but please just recognize that it's parachocial at best and generally based on false premises.
From the auto production stats above we are more than thriving. Good luck sir.
Quite frankly, I don't see the US government allowing the big 3 to fail. Remember the early 80's when Chrysler was in dire straights? What did the government do? Sported them a huge loan and then bought nothing but Chrysler products until they turned their company around. Now they buy pretty evenly over the big 3. I would hate to see the big 3 fail, but if it meant breaking down the unions in the country, then buy foreign. They are 110% responsible for every problem the big 3 have. As for what I buy, I have a Ford F150, a Mercury Mountaineer and a Toyota Tacoma (made in California). I got the Ford because my son wanted a 4X4, and the Ford was cheap. I got the Mountaineer (yesterday) because my wife needed a vehicle that sits low, but she wanted AWD and an SUV. The Mountaineer is about the only vehicle (other than Exploder) that really worked for her and the Mountaineer is in a class above the Exp. I got the Toyota because my 2 prior vehicles were Toyota, and the Tundra was so far superior to the previous 30+ vehicles I have owned that I didn't even look anywhere but Toyota. I buy what works for me, not for where it was made. And quite frankly, every vehicle I have owned has contributed significantly to Americans. I go to work defending my right and yours to drive whatever we want.
I can tell by your post(s) that I won't change your mind, but then again, you won't change mine either !
I'm frankly not sure what it is that you want.
You claim to be concerned about reducing the trade deficit (you first claim that you distracted me by mentioning it right before proceeding to post more article excerpts about it), yet you are happy to give your money to companies such as Ford and GM that are happy to increase the trade deficit by building cars abroad that they sell in the US.
You claim to be concerned about American jobs, yet you want to buy your cars from the Big 2.5 companies eager to export jobs, while not buying cars from the transplants that are building American plants and hiring Americans.
You claim to be concerned about where the profits go, when they go to shareholders who are located throughout the US and elsewhere in the world. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, two of Ford and GM's largest shareholders are the English Barclay's Bank and the German Deutschebank.)
And to add to this, you view Chryslers as being "American" cars even though they are headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.
So I don't get what you want, honestly. If you are buying cars simply because they are made by automakers that were "American" car companies two or three decades ago, then you are simply living in the past and missing out on some vital facts. Your logic doesn't match your own stated objectives -- wouldn't you like to be consistent?
I know that is a finished product retail number...but still. Keep in mind that we are importing more finishe product as well, because of our reluctance to allow refinery capacity increases.
Heh, friend of mine emailed me pictures of this last week.
But what's wrong with building a temperature controlled, indoor artificial ski slope in the middle of the Middle Eastern desert? Are you suggesting rich Middle Eastern oil sheikhs and their families should always have to travel abroad if they want to ski just because there's no snow in their own countries?
Isn't the bottom line "if you've got it (wealth), flaunt it"? How is this any worse than building theme parks like Disney World?
I suppose we can look at this as examples of how different peoples choose to "waste" or enjoy their money. In the US, plenty of people choose to buy gas-guzzlers, both SUVs and fast cars, that most of us probably don't actually need simply because--we want to. This spent oil money in turn allows rich Middle Easterners to build a wildy expensive and impractical indoor ski resort simply because--they want to. Do we actually care how other people choose to "waste" the money that we've "wasted" on them?
Cool. And they thank all those people who run the pickemup trucks and SUVs with low gas mileage through the last 10 years or so instead of buying an automobile that gets decent gas mileage.
No, not at all, I haven't heard the word "protectionism" mentioned until you brought it up, that's your word, not mine.
But since you introduce the subject, is it fair to allow Japan to play in free trade when in fact they are a protectionist nation ? Should the Japanese be allowed an open playing field here when the same cannot be done by an American or European company in Japan ?
Do we actually care how other people choose to "waste" the money that we've "wasted" on them?
It's true that they earned it legally and it is their money once we go to the pump. But we don't have to choose to support their lifestyle in this manner though. Not to mention the nutjob in Iran, whom we support, the friendly fundamentalist sheikhs in SA who admire our lifestyle so much and our best friend in S. America, Chavez, whom we also support.
For all the talk of China here on this forum one thing is certain, China is smart enough not to try to destroy it's No 1 customer. The three above want their No1 customer obliterated from the face of the earth.
Is it fair to allow Japan to play in free trade when in fact they are a protectionist nation ?
I would agree that it isn't terribly equitable. However:
(a) Since many of the "Japanese" cars sold in the US are now made in the US, those aren't really in the free trade equation. As noted, those cars built here and exported abroad do more to help to relieve the trade deficit than buying an import with a Big 2.5 nameplate.
(b) Even if there were zero trade barriers to the Japanese car market, do you honestly think that the US could compete there? Let's remember that the US builds sub-standard small cars, which are most in demand in Japan:
--Japanese fuel prices are among the highest in the world, making fuel economy highly important in that market
--The Japanese drive on the left; US cars are almost always engineered for LHD (driving on the right) only
--"American" cars are generally far too wide and heavy to fit comfortably on narrower Japanese roads
--Big 2.5 cars are almost always engineered with standard measurements, not metric, while the rest of the world uses metric.
So why would anyone overseas want to buy a Chevy Cobalt made in the US when they have much better alternatives that match their requirements for small, efficient cars engineered for their roads and that can be repaired with their tools? The Big 2.5 can't expect to ever large numbers of cars built in the US unless it considers the needs of those foreign consumers, a tough thing to expect when they can barely figure out what we want.
You continue to reply with attacks on my posts, and seem to want to tell me how wrong I am.
You are wrong because your tactics don't match your goals.
If you want to buy a GM car because you like how it looks, drives, etc., fair enough. That's a matter of personal taste, which is neither better nor worse than anyone else's.
But if you are concerned about preserving US manufacturing jobs, then you have completely missed the boat with your approach, and don't seem to understand the machinations of trade.
I'm asking you to choose an approach that is consistent with the goals that you have chosen for yourself. So far, you are just presuming that the Big 2.5 solely meet your goals, when the facts don't match your agenda.
In the two excerpts from FoxNews that you used in your post above discussing trade deficits, what you didnt realize is that they were actually complaining mainly about GM and Ford who are among the worst at bringing in vehicles from overseas thereby increasing our trade deficit.
Realistically, how can you reconcile this in your mind.
If you choose, you can hold the opinion that because you favor GM/F it is OK for them to increase our trade deficit but it is not OK for anyone else to do so.
The point is, if GM, Ford, DCX, Mercedes, etc. were allowed to play in Japan at all, by building plants there, hiring Japanese workers, etc, then yes, in order to survive in the Japanese market, they would absolutely have to build cars that the Japanese consumer would want, and cars that were relevant for the market there too. You are 100% correct. And I believe GM, Ford & DCX could do it too ! Could Chevy/Ford build a car in Japan that is relevant to the Japanese market ? ABSOLUTELY, if they allowed the opportunity to do so.
But reality is that the Japanese government won't play, they create unfair trade laws and regulations on non-Japanese business that will not allow competition to thrive in Japan, essentially they operate in a closed market.
Because of this Japanese policy, the Toyota/Honda/Nissan plants here in the U.S., and the cars/trucks built in them, have EVERYTHING to do with our current trade deficit. And so does the Yen, which is manipulated by the Japanese to keep it undervalued -v- the dollar.
Free Trade will only work when everybody plays the same game equally. Otherwise, somebody is going to be on the losing end, in this case it's the USofA. The score is the trade deficit. The playing field is the world economy. The U.S. is spotting everybody a huge lead. We're a nation that is naive like that. :confuse:
By the way, the Big 2.5 do just fine in Europe, China, Africa, etc. GM's worldwide sales were up +2% for 2005 due to the strength of sales in China and Latin America. And GM continues to grow in those markets. I think these company's have no problem figuring out what people want. They do a mighty fine job here at home too.
Because of this Japanese policy, the Toyota/Honda/Nissan plants here in the U.S., and the cars/trucks built in them, have EVERYTHING to do with our current trade deficit.
That's factually incorrect. A car built in the US with US parts does not contribute to the trade deficit, except for the value of the parts that are imported. (And that difference could be negated by exporting that car to a foreign market.)
For you to believe otherwise is an indication that you don't understand that a "trade deficit" is defined as the difference between the value of goods imported and exported.
-- When Honda exports a Civic made in Ohio, that reduces the trade deficit. --When Pontiac imports a GTO from Australia, that increases the trade deficit.
Those two points are facts, not opinions. That's the formula by which the balance of trade is calculated.
By the way, the Big 2.5 do just fine in Europe, China, Africa, etc. GM's worldwide sales were up +2% for 2005 due to the strength of sales in China and Latin America.
The irony is that GM is selling Asian-made cars in the PRC. No American blue collar workers earning wages from any of those sales.
No, not at all, I haven't heard the word "protectionism" mentioned until you brought it up, that's your word, not mine.
I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. So if that is not the word, then what are you advocating?
Should the Japanese be allowed an open playing field here when the same cannot be done by an American or European company in Japan ?
OK, say we do that. We severely curtail all Japanese auto imports. Now, seeing a void, European companies start moving in and bring in their entry level models. Consumers favor these over domestics and eventually Europeans start dominating the auto market, driving the big two to a very miniscule market share. Would that be OK with you?
>Now, seeing a void, European companies start moving in and bring in their entry level models.
The US companies could see more of a market for their small cars and actually put money into designing and selling more of their small cars. You are assuming only the Europeans would be available to fill in the market. Remember the Japanese started as small car, econobox makers in the 80s. That's what their reputation (economy of purchase and economy of operation ) was built on.
They later were able to smooze the size and market upward in size and age and were able to PR their way into a gas economy image for all of their models in many shoppers' minds.
When a country has been favored with no trade restrictions on importing cars or parts or in how they operate financially within the country and on a currency valuation bias, the local companies are unable to compete.
hondamatic: Isn't the bottom line "if you've got it (wealth), flaunt it"? How is this any worse than building theme parks like Disney World?
Isn't this ski resort being constructed with government money? Disney World, on the other hand, is a project built by a private corporation. It risked shareholders' money. Perhaps Disney received tax breaks or other assistance from Florida, but that is still different from having the government of either Florida or the United States assume the cost of building it.
Plus, a giant amusement park in Florida makes lots more sense than a ski resort in the desert.
imidazol97: Remember the Japanese started as small car, econobox makers in the 80s. That's what their reputation (economy of purchase and economy of operation ) was built on.
The Japanese built their reputation on two cars - the Toyota Corona and Datsun 510, both of which were introduced in the late 1960s. Later, the Honda Civic was introduced in 1973, followed by the CVCC version in 1975. That car was another important milestone.
Their reputation wasn't just built on low price and economy of operation. The Datsun 510 was a budget-priced sports sedan, with specifications far more sophisticated than other cars in its price range. Toyota already had a reputation for reliability in the 1970s with not just the Corona, but also the Corolla and the Celica. The Honda Civic CVCC showed the way for cleaner emissions and better performance.
imidazol97: They later were able to smooze the size and market upward in size and age and were able to PR their way into a gas economy image for all of their models in many shoppers' minds.
The image of superior fuel economy wasn't based on PR; it was real. In many cases, the domestics would advertise a high EPA number for a model, but that model was equipped with a base engine that offered performance ranging from mediocre to awful. The optional engines were the ones to get from a performance (and, as often as not, a reliability) standpoint. Economy, however, often suffered.
With the Japanese offering, however, a buyer could get decent performance and economy with the base engines.
imidazol97: When a country has been favored with no trade restrictions on importing cars or parts or in how they operate financially within the country and on a currency valuation bias, the local companies are unable to compete.
Sorry, but the problems experienced by GM go far deeper than currency manipulation by the Japanese government. For example, GM recently replaced the Cavalier with the Cobalt. The last makeover of the Cavalier was for the 1995 model year. It was competitive for that time, but GM let it wither on the market for a decade.
The company originally planned to roll out a revamped small car in 2000 or 2001. But after the debut of the Ford Focus, the planned car was panned in consumer clinics. So, GM delayed the new car, much to the dismay of Chevy dealers. And it used the delay to come up with...the Cobalt. Which isn't a bad car, but is hardly earth-shattering, and makes me wonder just what GM actually did during those 4-5 years when the Cobalt was delayed.
Currency manipulation doesn't explain why the Cobalt looks like a facelifted Cavalier. Currency manipulation doesn't explain why the Cobalt's back seat is so cramped. Or why the car isn't even beating the five-year-old Ford Focus in comparison tests.
Didn't see may successful foreign cars show up in mass in this area until the late 70s early 80s.
>superior fuel economy wasn't based on PR; it was real.
As I said the early cars were successful because they were bought for their low gas consumption and cheaper price. Later when I shopped for my 89 purchase, the high gas mileage versions of Honda and Toyota were 4 cyl with manuals. When I compared the 6 cylinder and automatic, I went with the bigger, roomier car with auto and 3300 motor. Great car. I watched the tv advertisements of Accords driving past gas pumps because of their good gas mileage but that wasn't true for the 6 cylinder automatic versions!
>Cobalt looks like a facelifted Cavalier. It sounds like you're confusing your dislike for GM and the Cobalt with currency valuation affecting the trade deficit via the prices of imported or goods built by foreign brand companies at their factory in some cases in the US.
Unfortunately, you are missing the boat. The problem with selling US cars in Japan, and Europe is not the fact that we have very poor compact car choices (although this is also true).
The problem is QUALITY. As someone who has traveled all over Europe, and a number of times to Japan, that is the key difference. GM and Ford make cars that are designed to appeal to the typical American. These cars are all about appearance: Big, macho, loud engines, "in your face" designs. Unfortunately, when you peel back the covers, you get a car with great low-end acceleration, but lousy highway performance. A tough looking exterior with cheap plastic interior, suspension designs that just don't quite get it. To sum up, a cheap, unrefined car.
This is what the Japanese and Europeans bring to the table. Refinement. Quality engineering. Constant improvements in material quality, design, manufacturing processes.
Most of Toyota's factories for example are heavily roboticized, which allows for much tighter tolerances, more accurate welds, lower number of workers required, and "just in time" automated parts distribution.
US factories on the other hand, are still back in the 20th century....
Toyota can thus change engineering specs much faster than GM. This is why EVERY Toyota (and Honda) Engine for the past 20 years has been a modern OHC design. GM by comparison is back in the stone age, STILL selling grunting pushrods. Pushrods are fine for high-torque truck applications, but for a passenger vehicle? no freakin way! Yes, with heroic engineering efforts, you can make a pushrod sing, but even then, they still stink. A modern DOHC design gets around 75-100hp/liter. Not even the vaunted Corvette gets anywhere close to that.
I won't even BEGIN to describe the horrific advantage in interior quality the imports have. My 10 year old $25k Audi would easily put a $50k new Cadillac to shame. I mean, how frackin hard is it for GM to put some REAL metal and wood in the interior, make sure all B-pillars are covered with high quality plastics or fabric, get some nice noise insulation in there...etc And for God's sake..get rid of the POS pushrods. GM has some nice modern engine designs. Use them! The old quad-4, with a little work, could be a premier compact GM car engine. The "ShortStar" V6 should be offered in EVERY GM CAR. Period. The 3.4 pushrod belongs on the scrap heap.
imidazol97: Didn't see may successful foreign cars show up in mass in this area until the late 70s early 80s.
But they were showing up on the coasts, which tend to set automotive trends in this country. Plus, even as a kid in the 1970s, I was well aware of various Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans by reading Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road Test and Road & Track.
Detroit got into trouble precisely BECAUSE it tried to dismiss increasing foreign car sales as a California phenomenon. As Jim Wangers, father of the GTO and hardly a GM hater, noted in his book Glory Days: When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit, every time he pointed out the success of Japanese cars in California to GM's brass, the reply was a variation of, "California is a foreign country. It isn't the real world."
imidazol97: It sounds like you're confusing your dislike for GM and the Cobalt with currency valuation affecting the trade deficit via the prices of imported or goods built by foreign brand companies
I don't "dislike" GM.
What I dislike is making excuses for a company that should be using its raw talent and facilities to do much better than it has been. GM's management and the UAW have been making excuses for the past 30 years; it's time to stop whining and start competing. It's also time to make some hard choices (drop the Jobs Bank; have blue-collar workers make some serious contributions to health care expenses; eliminate more redundant models).
As I pointed out, currency valuation has NOTHING to do with how the Cobalt is styled. It costs no more to design a good-looking car than it does to design an average one.
GM can design a beautiful small car - take a look at the European Opel/Vauxhall Astra. Unfortunately, Americans get the Cobalt...and the Saturn Ion, which is even worse.
And currency manipulation didn't stop Chrysler from coming up with the PT Cruiser, a distinctive, cleverly packaged small car that makes a nice end run around the Civic and Corolla. For that matter, Ford was able to come up with the Focus - despite laboring under the same handicaps as GM - and it STILL beats the much newer Cobalt in comparison tests.
What we need are fewer excuses and more creativity.
The Japanese government regularly intervenes into currency markets in order to keep the Yen undervalued against the Dollar. That is not a secret, or even new news, it is acknowledged from Boston to L.A., and back to Tokyo.
That makes all Japanese goods (cars included) cheaper here in the States, and allows Toyota/Honda/Nissan to hide their incentives in the trunk, so to speak !
You're right, it has nothing to do with car design and quality.
It's just an example of how the Japanese are able to export their policy of protectionism into the United States, and help Toyota/Honda/Nissan to an unfair advantage on price.
In turn, whether you will acknowledge it or not, this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks), creates job loss, and encourages our own industry's to invest in places like China, Korea and India to get the same cheap parts and labor that goes into the Japanese cars to begin with.
Then, the American consumer turns and criticizes GM, Ford and Chrysler for doing what the Japanese have been doing since day #1, global sourcing. It's all their fault, those big, bad automotive company's.
The Japanese are smart people, they've exported protectionism of their auto industry right here to America, and the American consumer is playing right into their hand with the sale of every Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
GM, Ford and DCX should have to compete with the Asian automakers, but they shouldn't have to compete against the Japanese Government too !
When you buy a Japanese car, no matter where it's made, you cast a vote for protectionism in Japan.
Info that counters the claim that transplant vehicles built here are supporting American jobs as much as buying a domestic. In today's NYT there's an article about the US trade deficit, which is at a new all-time high. At the beginning, it points out that one of the drivers of the deficit continues to be vehicle imports. Then at the end we see this:
"The [second] biggest gap was with Japan, at $82.7 billion, up 9.4 percent"
Info that counters the claim that transplant vehicles built here are supporting American jobs as much as buying a domestic. In today's NYT there's an article about the US trade deficit, which is at a new all-time high. At the beginning, it points out that one of the drivers of the deficit continues to be vehicle imports.
And the cars built in the US by Honda, Toyota, etc. are NOT imports.
An import is defined as a product manufactured outside the US that is sold here. It has nothing to do with the location of the headquarters of the company, but where the product is made. Your NYT article does nothing to support your point, nowhere does it refute the fact that an Ohio-built Honda is not an import.
The Japanese government regularly intervenes into currency markets in order to keep the Yen undervalued against the Dollar.
Not sure where you're learning about economics, but you're confusing some factoids here:
-- All governments attempt to manage their exchange rates, including the US. The US attempted to reduce imports during the Reagan administration, using both voluntary auto quotas and an effort by the G6 nations to deflate the value of the dollar. (Although the dollar did lose value, imports certainly didn't stop, and continued to increase.)
-- The US has had a strong dollar policy because of its dependency on imports and its desire to maintain low inflation, but the dollar has also been losing value, particularly during the first Bush term as investors became nervous about the effects of the Iraq war and increasing oil prices on the US economy.
-- Perhaps you missed the news that the dollar is down 15% from the yen as compared to its recent peak value in early 2002, and that the dollar had fallen against the yen by about 25% as of the beginning of 2005.
-- And you might be confusing the Chinese yuan with the Japanese yen. While the yen floats on the free markets as does the dollar, the yuan is pegged by the Chinese government and its value is managed more directly.
That makes all Japanese goods (cars included) cheaper here in the States, and allows Toyota/Honda/Nissan to hide their incentives in the trunk, so to speak !
Not quite. One reason for the Japanese companies to build cars in the US is to protect themselves from the effects of changing exchange rates. And do remember that despite you've said here, it has been the dollar that has been falling within recent years against the yen, not the other way around.
It's just an example of how the Japanese are able to export their policy of protectionism into the United States, and help Toyota/Honda/Nissan to an unfair advantage on price.
???
Evidence, please -- this statement seems to be completely false.
I see that the price of comparable Big 2.5 cars being below those of the "imports". It's GM and Ford touting "Employee Discounts For Everyone" and slash-and-burn rebates, not Honda or Toyota.
this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks)...
What hurts GM and Ford is building products that consumers don't want, and a reputation for low reliability. Not really sure why anyone who supports the Big 2.5 wouldn't simply want them to build a better car. Building quality seems to be sacrireligious among some people...
I found the part to be interesting but ineffective on the part of our government. No mention of Japanese currency pressure.
"Lawmakers in Washington have seized on the growing trade imbalance in China to call on the Bush administration to take a harder line with the country on its currency and other trade practices."
The US companies could see more of a market for their small cars and actually put money into designing and selling more of their small cars. You are assuming only the Europeans would be available to fill in the market.\
The US divisions of the Big 2.5 have had more than thirty years to get into the game, and they have largely done a second rate job of it.
Why should anyone believe that opening up Japan's car market to more competition would motivate the Big 2.5 to make a better small car than they do now?
Are you trying to tell us that the US market is big enough for Honda and Toyota to design good cars, but the same market isn't big enough for GM to feel so inspired? You must realize that this makes no sense whatsoever.
The title of your post and the article have nothing to do with one another except the transplants in Ohio help decrease the trade deficit. You conveniently ignore this.
Also conveniently ignored is that both Ford and GM each import nearly 200,000 vehicles themselves from different parts of the world, more if you include Canada. This puts them 2nd and 3rd behind Toyota as auto importers.
Toyota can thus change engineering specs much faster than GM. This is why EVERY Toyota (and Honda) Engine for the past 20 years has been a modern OHC design. GM by comparison is back in the stone age, STILL selling grunting pushrods. Pushrods are fine for high-torque truck applications, but for a passenger vehicle? no freakin way! Yes, with heroic engineering efforts, you can make a pushrod sing, but even then, they still stink. A modern DOHC design gets around 75-100hp/liter. Not even the vaunted Corvette gets anywhere close to that.
OHC designs predate pushrods, so they are more "stone age" that pushrods are. And how exactly due pushrod's stink? GM makes everything from a nice 210hp (more then adequate for most people) V6 that gets gas mileage equivalent to a 4 banger, to a 500hp V8 that outperforms almost anything. And please don't bring that hp/l crap in here.
The Japanese government regularly intervenes into currency markets in order to keep the Yen undervalued against the Dollar. That is not a secret, or even new news, it is acknowledged from Boston to L.A., and back to Tokyo.
A broad statement with no supporting facts. Please provide one graph or citation with proof of your unfounded statement. Not someone's opinion. Otherwise your statement is nothing more than an ill-informed opinion of 'why things aren't the way I'd like them to be'.
This is just a 'pixie-dust' argument. "There must be some reason that the Japanese companies are beating the Detroit-based ones but I cant figure it out so it must be 'pixie-dust'."
In this case since the Japanese transplants are selling better vehicles, with less incentives and at higher prices, using American workers and American materiels they must be using 'pixie dust' to accomplish it.
In turn, whether you will acknowledge it or not, this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks), creates job loss, and encourages our own industry's to invest in places like China, Korea and India to get the same cheap parts and labor that goes into the Japanese cars to begin with.
Nonsensical statement. Vehicle built here do nothing to the trade deficit except possible reduce it.
...decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks),
Here's a direct question for you now. With very little research, not your feelings, what has happened to Lt Truck and Auto production here in N America in the last 20 years?
GM, Ford and DCX should have to compete with the Asian automakers, but they shouldn't have to compete against the Japanese Government too !
Another direct question. How is DCX different than Hyundai or Honda? It's a German company with auto facilities here in the US. Is it that you just 'feel' like it's an American company.
It seems that a lot of your arguments are based on your 'feelings' with no sound basis in fact. Actually there are no facts in your statement only your 'feelings'. This is OK because everyone is entitled to an opinion... even if it is not based on facts. In the 1400's nearly everyone was a 'flat-worlder', maybe things haven't changed much in the intervening 600 years.
this discussion has been spiraled into people ridiculing other's points much like the Repealing speed limits discussion and has outserved any usefulness. When people are calling others "flatlanders" and "pixie dust" methods, it's obviously gone beyond Rules of the Road.
The OHV vs OHC debate will gone on forever with each devotee having their own selfrighteous dedication to their motor preference. Last I checked both get you there with four wheels under them.
It's obvious some think companies who are based elsewhere, use suppliers who are actually only US companies and all that goes into the foreign brand car produced here is US made materials. Others believe the companies set up suppliers who are companies to move monies through and get parts for their cars and that part of the pieces are imported.
Others feel that importing a car built partly of parts from Canada or Mexico by a US company is importing a car such as a car built in Japan by Honda.
It's obvious there's no aggreement. Everyone just needs to disagree and quit demanding proof of a statement. It becomes boring.
This is a new and views forum so it's clear that the rules lets say are less stringent for the basis of arguments. One can post anything essentially as long as it's within the confines of good taste.
But... Opinions should be stated as opinions, IMO for example. But broad statements such as 'Everyone knows the world is flat, how can you not see that' is an opinion trying to hide as a fact. It begs to be contested. Similarly 'economic' well-known 'truths' as stated in several posts above beg to be contested, these statements have the same factual basis as the 'flatworlder' arguments. Just making a statement does not make it fact. It's only one person's humble opinion.
Comments
They have these cartoon skits that are absolutely hilarious. The one 'Big Box Mart' addresses our 'buy American' topic. The one 'This Land' was made just before the 2004 election and it is great - especially where Howard Dean screams.
A trade deficit occurs when the value of imports exceeds the value of exports.
This is the key phrase am I right? You would prefer to give your money to the Chrysler division of Daimler rather than to a transplant which is not 'traditional'.
I know parts content comes in to play too, but my next thought is where will the profit from my sale go ?
Profit? Since all the major automakers are publicly traded on the NYSE the profit goes back to you and me the shareholders. DC, Toyota, Honda all their profits go into the funds in my 401k. GM/F used to until I rearranged the composition of the funds .... as did the funds themselves.
Consider this weird situation, if you choose to give your money to a traditional GM/F you are continuing to pay up to $1500/vehicle to a retiree or non-working able-bodied UAW member - or both - here. But since GM/F make no profit none of this money comes back to you. If you purchase a DC/T/H which do make a profit, some of this comes back to you in an increase in the value of your holdings. So do you wish to pay someone else or yourself? It's your money.
Here is reality. It is one large international market. Just pick the winning companies and profit from their success.
BTW over the last 10 years there has been no loss of employment in the NA auto industry. It's remained steady. Want more figures? They are readily available on other forums/posts. Actually we here are doing incredibly well notwithstanding the gloom and doomers, the 'Oh poor me's'
True, I buy only from traditional domestics, is there a problem with that ? They have provided me with good cars at a very good value for years, it works for me O.K. ? I don't buy into the Toyota is better arguement.
I have never bought a vehicle made in Mexico, so you're analysis doesn't apply to my post, at least as far as I'm concerned.
You skipped the fact that my last three vehicle purchases are all cars produced on U.S. soil, so I haven't purchased goods made outside the U.S. as you attempt to imply.
The trade deficit is created by that giant sucking sound of cash (that's American dollars) that are leaving this country each and every day. It's just not cars, it's a whole lot of stuff, we all know that.
Is a trade deficit good for our country ? No, it's not.
Will a trade deficit eventually hurt our economy in the long run if it's not balanced out ? Yes, it will.
All I'm saying is I try to be conscious of what impact my consumer spending has on the economy. We're addicted to cheap foreign goods here in the USA, and it's costing us big time in jobs, pay, benefits, etc. especially here in the mid-west.
I can't change all that by myself, but it makes me feel good to seek out and buy American made products wherever and whenever I can. Sometimes it costs me more, but I don't care.
I completely understand what compromises a trade deficit, and it's up to the American consumer to change that with their spending habits. That's the part the majority of American's don't understand.
I completely understand what compromises a trade deficit, and it's up to the American consumer to change that with their spending habits. That's the part the majority of American's don't understand
You would definitely advise against buying the Fusion, all Volvo's, Aveo's, Jags and LR's ( none built in the US )in favor of the Odyssey, Sonata and Tundra ( all built in the US ). In agreement? I am.
Like I said in the very first sentence of my original post, it means something different for each and every one of us.
I think that I've been clear right from the start, that for me, it's buying from the two remaining traditional domestics only (i.e.; Ford and GM), cars made on U.S. soil.
All of you that have replied seem to want to imply that there is something wrong with that ? I won't apologize for preferring to buy Chevy's or Ford's made here in the U.S. It's what I do, and I'm not about to change my mind just because Toyota or Honda builds a plant here and employ's American's to make their cars.
If the U.S. made Accord / Camry / Tundra and others work for you, I say go for it ! To each their own. Can I be any clearer than that ?
It is a problem IF your goal is to reduce the trade deficit, which is what you claimed your goal to be.
I have never bought a vehicle made in Mexico, so you're analysis doesn't apply to my post, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough, but do keep in mind that Ford and GM are making cars in Mexico. If you care about the trade deficit, then it would be wise to make sure that you advise that people avoid buying the large number of vehicles they build outside the US.
All I'm saying is I try to be conscious of what impact my consumer spending has on the economy. We're addicted to cheap foreign goods here in the USA, and it's costing us big time in jobs, pay, benefits, etc. especially here in the mid-west.
That's fine, in which case I would tell you that buying an Ohio-made Accord with 70% domestic content than would be buying, for example, a PT Cruiser with 65% domestic content. Perhaps you wouldn't buy the PT Cruiser, either -- just don't kid yourself into thinking that it would be a more "American" choice than would be a Honda made in Ohio.
Again, if you care about the trade deficit and jobs, it shouldn't matter where the company is headquartered, just so long as it employs Americans and the maker uses American content. Simply going for the Big 2.5 for the sake of it otherwise makes no sense.
Further, if you really care about the trade deficit, you may as well bet on the company with the best prospects for exporting the production they make in the US. We all know that Honda is more than happy to export US-made cars abroad, whereas the Big 2.5 have trouble building cars that many people outside of the US are going to want to buy.
So frankly, if your prime concern is the trade deficit, I'd be supporting Honda, one company which is happy to hire Americans, happy to use American-made parts and more capable than are the behemoths in Dearborn and Detroit of building a car worthy of export.
All of you that have replied seem to want to imply that there is something wrong with that ? I won't apologize for preferring to buy Chevy's or Ford's made here in the U.S.
You should never apologize for buying what you like. But then, neither should anyone who buys, say, a Nissan.
The bigger problem is that just because a vehicle sports a bowtie or blue oval does NOT mean that it was made in the U.S.A., or that even most of its parts were made here. The Ford Fusion (a car that I really like) is made in Mexico. The Chevy Equinox uses an engine made in China. The Honda Accord is made in Ohio. Which is more "American?" Looking at the badges on the hood and trunk are not a reliable indicator as to whether the vehicle is made here.
As for the "what-matters-is-where-the-money-goes" argument - Honda and Toyota are increasing their engineering and design facilities in the United States, and sourcing more components from American-based suppliers.
In other words, they are using their profits to increase their American presence.
Ford and GM are relying on platforms designed and engineered by their overseas affiliates. They are moving production out of this country, and pressuring their suppliers to do the same.
In other words, they are outsourcing production and design to overseas locations as fast as they can.
So which of these companies is more "American?"
Automotive News 04/25/05 announcement on industry employment:
Big 3 job cuts since 2000: 130,394 ▼
Non-big 3 jobs added since 2000: 27,183 ▲
For every one transplant job added in the US, nearly five jobs are eliminated
Foxnews: Trade Deficit Hits All-Time High [03/05] "... but private economists are worried that the huge level of resources being transferred into the hands of foreigners will eventually result in lower U.S. livinsg standards ... the deficit represents the amount in resources that the United States is transferring into the hands of foreigners in exchange for foreign oil, cars and other products that Americans are purchasing."
Foxnews: Trade Deficit Hits $58.3 Billion in January [02/05] "The U.S. trade deficit climbed to $58.3 billion in January, the second-highest level in history, as Americans' appetite for foreign consumer products and automobiles hit record highs. However, imports rose at an even faster pace of 1.9 percent in January, climbing to an all-time high of $159.1 billion. Imports of foreign cars and auto parts and consumer goods set records while imports of capital goods, everything from computers to airplanes, rose to the highest level in more than four years."
Motor Trend Letters to the Editor: Eat My Lunch
Toyota's emergence as the world automotive financial powerhouse is symptomatic of an underlying U.S. problem that'll leave all Americans poorer. Americans have been brainwashed to believe there are no consequences for buying imported products, especially if those products are assembled here. Sending $50 billion a month in trade deficit to foreign companies will sooner or later have consequences. The U.S. is on a path to high inflation and low purchasing power. Toyota isn't just eating GM's lunch. It's eating your lunch and my lunch. Are we smart enough to care? Max Limpert - Fort Wayne, Indiana
I'm not a genuis, no sir, I'm just an ordinary Joe. But I think I get it, and that's one of the many reasons that I only buy American cars. To learn more, visit;
http://www.americancarsfirst.com/
and
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/
I wish us all a bright and prosperous future.
Your (4) points:
Point #1
My post #652
From the NYTimes article today:
Ford Eliminating Up to 30,000 Jobs and 14 Factories
quote:
"Because of their growth, there has been no net loss in American automotive jobs over the last 10 years, according to James P. Womack, an author and specialist in manufacturing efficiency. Auto industry employment has held steady at about 1.1 million workers, including those at parts companies, he said.
Further:
My post #692
1985 N.A. Auto/Light Truck production: 11,360,000 units
2005 N.A. Auto/Light Truck production: 15,788,000 units
( sources provided if requested )
In 20 years the auto industry production has grown by 39%. This is hardly an industry in the throes of death. It's pretty damn vibrant if you ask me.!!
So much for a dying industry.
Your points #2 & 3
You keep bringing up this deficit question but some of the worst offenders are your two champion companies. Is it OK for them to import Aveo's from Korea, engines from China and entire vehicles from Mexico? Not to mention Saabs, Land Rovers, Volvo's and Jags. Bad idea to keep coming back to this issue.
Your point #4
One view from someone who is '..not a genius, no sir, I'm just an ordinary Joe.' Whose view is perfectly reasonable if it is he and his family affected. But there are thousands of people in TX, AL, TN and maybe soon MI who would beg to differ and they are just 'ordinary Joe's' too.
You are entitled for sure to hold onto your belief but please just recognize that it's parachocial at best and generally based on false premises.
From the auto production stats above we are more than thriving. Good luck sir.
I'm frankly not sure what it is that you want.
You claim to be concerned about reducing the trade deficit (you first claim that you distracted me by mentioning it right before proceeding to post more article excerpts about it), yet you are happy to give your money to companies such as Ford and GM that are happy to increase the trade deficit by building cars abroad that they sell in the US.
You claim to be concerned about American jobs, yet you want to buy your cars from the Big 2.5 companies eager to export jobs, while not buying cars from the transplants that are building American plants and hiring Americans.
You claim to be concerned about where the profits go, when they go to shareholders who are located throughout the US and elsewhere in the world. (As I've pointed out elsewhere, two of Ford and GM's largest shareholders are the English Barclay's Bank and the German Deutschebank.)
And to add to this, you view Chryslers as being "American" cars even though they are headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.
So I don't get what you want, honestly. If you are buying cars simply because they are made by automakers that were "American" car companies two or three decades ago, then you are simply living in the past and missing out on some vital facts. Your logic doesn't match your own stated objectives -- wouldn't you like to be consistent?
consider this:
15,000 miles a year
20 mpg
$2.50 a gallon
15,000/20 = 750 gallons
750g x $2.50 = $1875 a year...and then consider WHERE those dollars are going.
http://www.skidubai.ae/facts_eng.htm?mid=1&sid=2
now when you go to the pump and put in $70, $80 or $100 at a time consider this. the proceeds of your 'transportation taxes' at work.
Just to be clear... this is in a -------- desert!!!!
But what's wrong with building a temperature controlled, indoor artificial ski slope in the middle of the Middle Eastern desert?
Isn't the bottom line "if you've got it (wealth), flaunt it"? How is this any worse than building theme parks like Disney World?
I suppose we can look at this as examples of how different peoples choose to "waste" or enjoy their money. In the US, plenty of people choose to buy gas-guzzlers, both SUVs and fast cars, that most of us probably don't actually need simply because--we want to. This spent oil money in turn allows rich Middle Easterners to build a wildy expensive and impractical indoor ski resort simply because--they want to. Do we actually care how other people choose to "waste" the money that we've "wasted" on them?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But since you introduce the subject, is it fair to allow Japan to play in free trade when in fact they are a protectionist nation ? Should the Japanese be allowed an open playing field here when the same cannot be done by an American or European company in Japan ?
It's true that they earned it legally and it is their money once we go to the pump. But we don't have to choose to support their lifestyle in this manner though. Not to mention the nutjob in Iran, whom we support, the friendly fundamentalist sheikhs in SA who admire our lifestyle so much and our best friend in S. America, Chavez, whom we also support.
For all the talk of China here on this forum one thing is certain, China is smart enough not to try to destroy it's No 1 customer. The three above want their No1 customer obliterated from the face of the earth.
You continue to reply with attacks on my posts, and seem to want to tell me how wrong I am.
I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me.
I'm O.K. with that.
I would agree that it isn't terribly equitable. However:
(a) Since many of the "Japanese" cars sold in the US are now made in the US, those aren't really in the free trade equation. As noted, those cars built here and exported abroad do more to help to relieve the trade deficit than buying an import with a Big 2.5 nameplate.
(b) Even if there were zero trade barriers to the Japanese car market, do you honestly think that the US could compete there? Let's remember that the US builds sub-standard small cars, which are most in demand in Japan:
--Japanese fuel prices are among the highest in the world, making fuel economy highly important in that market
--The Japanese drive on the left; US cars are almost always engineered for LHD (driving on the right) only
--"American" cars are generally far too wide and heavy to fit comfortably on narrower Japanese roads
--Big 2.5 cars are almost always engineered with standard measurements, not metric, while the rest of the world uses metric.
So why would anyone overseas want to buy a Chevy Cobalt made in the US when they have much better alternatives that match their requirements for small, efficient cars engineered for their roads and that can be repaired with their tools? The Big 2.5 can't expect to ever large numbers of cars built in the US unless it considers the needs of those foreign consumers, a tough thing to expect when they can barely figure out what we want.
You are wrong because your tactics don't match your goals.
If you want to buy a GM car because you like how it looks, drives, etc., fair enough. That's a matter of personal taste, which is neither better nor worse than anyone else's.
But if you are concerned about preserving US manufacturing jobs, then you have completely missed the boat with your approach, and don't seem to understand the machinations of trade.
I'm asking you to choose an approach that is consistent with the goals that you have chosen for yourself. So far, you are just presuming that the Big 2.5 solely meet your goals, when the facts don't match your agenda.
In the two excerpts from FoxNews that you used in your post above discussing trade deficits, what you didnt realize is that they were actually complaining mainly about GM and Ford who are among the worst at bringing in vehicles from overseas thereby increasing our trade deficit.
Realistically, how can you reconcile this in your mind.
If you choose, you can hold the opinion that because you favor GM/F it is OK for them to increase our trade deficit but it is not OK for anyone else to do so.
I'm sorry, but your wrong.
The point is, if GM, Ford, DCX, Mercedes, etc. were allowed to play in Japan at all, by building plants there, hiring Japanese workers, etc, then yes, in order to survive in the Japanese market, they would absolutely have to build cars that the Japanese consumer would want, and cars that were relevant for the market there too. You are 100% correct. And I believe GM, Ford & DCX could do it too ! Could Chevy/Ford build a car in Japan that is relevant to the Japanese market ? ABSOLUTELY, if they allowed the opportunity to do so.
But reality is that the Japanese government won't play, they create unfair trade laws and regulations on non-Japanese business that will not allow competition to thrive in Japan, essentially they operate in a closed market.
Because of this Japanese policy, the Toyota/Honda/Nissan plants here in the U.S., and the cars/trucks built in them, have EVERYTHING to do with our current trade deficit. And so does the Yen, which is manipulated by the Japanese to keep it undervalued -v- the dollar.
Free Trade will only work when everybody plays the same game equally. Otherwise, somebody is going to be on the losing end, in this case it's the USofA. The score is the trade deficit. The playing field is the world economy. The U.S. is spotting everybody a huge lead. We're a nation that is naive like that. :confuse:
By the way, the Big 2.5 do just fine in Europe, China, Africa, etc. GM's worldwide sales were up +2% for 2005 due to the strength of sales in China and Latin America. And GM continues to grow in those markets. I think these company's have no problem figuring out what people want. They do a mighty fine job here at home too.
That's factually incorrect. A car built in the US with US parts does not contribute to the trade deficit, except for the value of the parts that are imported. (And that difference could be negated by exporting that car to a foreign market.)
For you to believe otherwise is an indication that you don't understand that a "trade deficit" is defined as the difference between the value of goods imported and exported.
-- When Honda exports a Civic made in Ohio, that reduces the trade deficit.
--When Pontiac imports a GTO from Australia, that increases the trade deficit.
Those two points are facts, not opinions. That's the formula by which the balance of trade is calculated.
By the way, the Big 2.5 do just fine in Europe, China, Africa, etc. GM's worldwide sales were up +2% for 2005 due to the strength of sales in China and Latin America.
The irony is that GM is selling Asian-made cars in the PRC. No American blue collar workers earning wages from any of those sales.
I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. So if that is not the word, then what are you advocating?
Should the Japanese be allowed an open playing field here when the same cannot be done by an American or European company in Japan ?
OK, say we do that. We severely curtail all Japanese auto imports. Now, seeing a void, European companies start moving in and bring in their entry level models. Consumers favor these over domestics and eventually Europeans start dominating the auto market, driving the big two to a very miniscule market share. Would that be OK with you?
The US companies could see more of a market for their small cars and actually put money into designing and selling more of their small cars. You are assuming only the Europeans would be available to fill in the market. Remember the Japanese started as small car, econobox makers in the 80s. That's what their reputation (economy of purchase and economy of operation ) was built on.
They later were able to smooze the size and market upward in size and age and were able to PR their way into a gas economy image for all of their models in many shoppers' minds.
When a country has been favored with no trade restrictions on importing cars or parts or in how they operate financially within the country and on a currency valuation bias, the local companies are unable to compete.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Isn't this ski resort being constructed with government money? Disney World, on the other hand, is a project built by a private corporation. It risked shareholders' money. Perhaps Disney received tax breaks or other assistance from Florida, but that is still different from having the government of either Florida or the United States assume the cost of building it.
Plus, a giant amusement park in Florida makes lots more sense than a ski resort in the desert.
The Japanese built their reputation on two cars - the Toyota Corona and Datsun 510, both of which were introduced in the late 1960s. Later, the Honda Civic was introduced in 1973, followed by the CVCC version in 1975. That car was another important milestone.
Their reputation wasn't just built on low price and economy of operation. The Datsun 510 was a budget-priced sports sedan, with specifications far more sophisticated than other cars in its price range. Toyota already had a reputation for reliability in the 1970s with not just the Corona, but also the Corolla and the Celica. The Honda Civic CVCC showed the way for cleaner emissions and better performance.
imidazol97: They later were able to smooze the size and market upward in size and age and were able to PR their way into a gas economy image for all of their models in many shoppers' minds.
The image of superior fuel economy wasn't based on PR; it was real. In many cases, the domestics would advertise a high EPA number for a model, but that model was equipped with a base engine that offered performance ranging from mediocre to awful. The optional engines were the ones to get from a performance (and, as often as not, a reliability) standpoint. Economy, however, often suffered.
With the Japanese offering, however, a buyer could get decent performance and economy with the base engines.
imidazol97: When a country has been favored with no trade restrictions on importing cars or parts or in how they operate financially within the country and on a currency valuation bias, the local companies are unable to compete.
Sorry, but the problems experienced by GM go far deeper than currency manipulation by the Japanese government. For example, GM recently replaced the Cavalier with the Cobalt. The last makeover of the Cavalier was for the 1995 model year. It was competitive for that time, but GM let it wither on the market for a decade.
The company originally planned to roll out a revamped small car in 2000 or 2001. But after the debut of the Ford Focus, the planned car was panned in consumer clinics. So, GM delayed the new car, much to the dismay of Chevy dealers. And it used the delay to come up with...the Cobalt. Which isn't a bad car, but is hardly earth-shattering, and makes me wonder just what GM actually did during those 4-5 years when the Cobalt was delayed.
Currency manipulation doesn't explain why the Cobalt looks like a facelifted Cavalier. Currency manipulation doesn't explain why the Cobalt's back seat is so cramped. Or why the car isn't even beating the five-year-old Ford Focus in comparison tests.
Didn't see may successful foreign cars show up in mass in this area until the late 70s early 80s.
>superior fuel economy wasn't based on PR; it was real.
As I said the early cars were successful because they were bought for their low gas consumption and cheaper price. Later when I shopped for my 89 purchase, the high gas mileage versions of Honda and Toyota were 4 cyl with manuals. When I compared the 6 cylinder and automatic, I went with the bigger, roomier car with auto and 3300 motor. Great car. I watched the tv advertisements of Accords driving past gas pumps because of their good gas mileage but that wasn't true for the 6 cylinder automatic versions!
>Cobalt looks like a facelifted Cavalier.
It sounds like you're confusing your dislike for GM and the Cobalt with currency valuation affecting the trade deficit via the prices of imported or goods built by foreign brand companies at their factory in some cases in the US.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The problem with selling US cars in Japan, and Europe is not the fact that we have very poor compact car choices (although this is also true).
The problem is QUALITY. As someone who has traveled all over Europe, and a number of times to Japan, that is the key difference.
GM and Ford make cars that are designed to appeal to the typical American. These cars are all about appearance: Big, macho, loud engines, "in your face" designs. Unfortunately, when you peel back the covers, you get a car with great low-end acceleration, but lousy highway performance. A tough looking exterior with cheap plastic interior, suspension designs that just don't quite get it. To sum up, a cheap, unrefined car.
This is what the Japanese and Europeans bring to the table. Refinement. Quality engineering. Constant improvements in material quality, design, manufacturing processes.
Most of Toyota's factories for example are heavily roboticized, which allows for much tighter tolerances, more accurate welds, lower number of workers required, and "just in time" automated parts distribution.
US factories on the other hand, are still back in the 20th century....
Toyota can thus change engineering specs much faster than GM. This is why EVERY Toyota (and Honda) Engine for the past 20 years has been a modern OHC design. GM by comparison is back in the stone age, STILL selling grunting pushrods. Pushrods are fine for high-torque truck applications, but for a passenger vehicle? no freakin way! Yes, with heroic engineering efforts, you can make a pushrod sing, but even then, they still stink. A modern DOHC design gets around 75-100hp/liter. Not even the vaunted Corvette gets anywhere close to that.
I won't even BEGIN to describe the horrific advantage in interior quality the imports have. My 10 year old $25k Audi would easily put a $50k new Cadillac to shame. I mean, how frackin hard is it for GM to put some REAL metal and wood in the interior, make sure all B-pillars are covered with high quality plastics or fabric, get some nice noise insulation in there...etc
And for God's sake..get rid of the POS pushrods. GM has some nice modern engine designs. Use them! The old quad-4, with a little work, could be a premier compact GM car engine. The "ShortStar" V6 should be offered in EVERY GM CAR. Period. The 3.4 pushrod belongs on the scrap heap.
But they were showing up on the coasts, which tend to set automotive trends in this country. Plus, even as a kid in the 1970s, I was well aware of various Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans by reading Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road Test and Road & Track.
Detroit got into trouble precisely BECAUSE it tried to dismiss increasing foreign car sales as a California phenomenon. As Jim Wangers, father of the GTO and hardly a GM hater, noted in his book Glory Days: When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit, every time he pointed out the success of Japanese cars in California to GM's brass, the reply was a variation of, "California is a foreign country. It isn't the real world."
imidazol97: It sounds like you're confusing your dislike for GM and the Cobalt with currency valuation affecting the trade deficit via the prices of imported or goods built by foreign brand companies
I don't "dislike" GM.
What I dislike is making excuses for a company that should be using its raw talent and facilities to do much better than it has been. GM's management and the UAW have been making excuses for the past 30 years; it's time to stop whining and start competing. It's also time to make some hard choices (drop the Jobs Bank; have blue-collar workers make some serious contributions to health care expenses; eliminate more redundant models).
As I pointed out, currency valuation has NOTHING to do with how the Cobalt is styled. It costs no more to design a good-looking car than it does to design an average one.
GM can design a beautiful small car - take a look at the European Opel/Vauxhall Astra. Unfortunately, Americans get the Cobalt...and the Saturn Ion, which is even worse.
And currency manipulation didn't stop Chrysler from coming up with the PT Cruiser, a distinctive, cleverly packaged small car that makes a nice end run around the Civic and Corolla. For that matter, Ford was able to come up with the Focus - despite laboring under the same handicaps as GM - and it STILL beats the much newer Cobalt in comparison tests.
What we need are fewer excuses and more creativity.
That makes all Japanese goods (cars included) cheaper here in the States, and allows Toyota/Honda/Nissan to hide their incentives in the trunk, so to speak !
You're right, it has nothing to do with car design and quality.
It's just an example of how the Japanese are able to export their policy of protectionism into the United States, and help Toyota/Honda/Nissan to an unfair advantage on price.
In turn, whether you will acknowledge it or not, this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks), creates job loss, and encourages our own industry's to invest in places like China, Korea and India to get the same cheap parts and labor that goes into the Japanese cars to begin with.
Then, the American consumer turns and criticizes GM, Ford and Chrysler for doing what the Japanese have been doing since day #1, global sourcing. It's all their fault, those big, bad automotive company's.
The Japanese are smart people, they've exported protectionism of their auto industry right here to America, and the American consumer is playing right into their hand with the sale of every Toyota, Honda and Nissan.
GM, Ford and DCX should have to compete with the Asian automakers, but they shouldn't have to compete against the Japanese Government too !
When you buy a Japanese car, no matter where it's made, you cast a vote for protectionism in Japan.
supporting American jobs as much as buying a domestic. In today's NYT
there's an article about the US trade deficit, which is at a new
all-time high. At the beginning, it points out that one of the drivers
of the deficit continues to be vehicle imports. Then at the end we see
this:
"The [second] biggest gap was with Japan, at $82.7 billion, up 9.4
percent"
Full article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/business/10cnd-econ.html?_r=1&oref=login
And the cars built in the US by Honda, Toyota, etc. are NOT imports.
An import is defined as a product manufactured outside the US that is sold here. It has nothing to do with the location of the headquarters of the company, but where the product is made. Your NYT article does nothing to support your point, nowhere does it refute the fact that an Ohio-built Honda is not an import.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not sure where you're learning about economics, but you're confusing some factoids here:
-- All governments attempt to manage their exchange rates, including the US. The US attempted to reduce imports during the Reagan administration, using both voluntary auto quotas and an effort by the G6 nations to deflate the value of the dollar. (Although the dollar did lose value, imports certainly didn't stop, and continued to increase.)
-- The US has had a strong dollar policy because of its dependency on imports and its desire to maintain low inflation, but the dollar has also been losing value, particularly during the first Bush term as investors became nervous about the effects of the Iraq war and increasing oil prices on the US economy.
-- Perhaps you missed the news that the dollar is down 15% from the yen as compared to its recent peak value in early 2002, and that the dollar had fallen against the yen by about 25% as of the beginning of 2005.
-- And you might be confusing the Chinese yuan with the Japanese yen. While the yen floats on the free markets as does the dollar, the yuan is pegged by the Chinese government and its value is managed more directly.
That makes all Japanese goods (cars included) cheaper here in the States, and allows Toyota/Honda/Nissan to hide their incentives in the trunk, so to speak !
Not quite. One reason for the Japanese companies to build cars in the US is to protect themselves from the effects of changing exchange rates. And do remember that despite you've said here, it has been the dollar that has been falling within recent years against the yen, not the other way around.
It's just an example of how the Japanese are able to export their policy of protectionism into the United States, and help Toyota/Honda/Nissan to an unfair advantage on price.
???
Evidence, please -- this statement seems to be completely false.
I see that the price of comparable Big 2.5 cars being below those of the "imports". It's GM and Ford touting "Employee Discounts For Everyone" and slash-and-burn rebates, not Honda or Toyota.
this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks)...
What hurts GM and Ford is building products that consumers don't want, and a reputation for low reliability. Not really sure why anyone who supports the Big 2.5 wouldn't simply want them to build a better car. Building quality seems to be sacrireligious among some people...
I found the part to be interesting but ineffective on the part of our government. No mention of Japanese currency pressure.
"Lawmakers in Washington have seized on the growing trade imbalance in China to call on the Bush administration to take a harder line with the country on its currency and other trade practices."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The US divisions of the Big 2.5 have had more than thirty years to get into the game, and they have largely done a second rate job of it.
Why should anyone believe that opening up Japan's car market to more competition would motivate the Big 2.5 to make a better small car than they do now?
Are you trying to tell us that the US market is big enough for Honda and Toyota to design good cars, but the same market isn't big enough for GM to feel so inspired? You must realize that this makes no sense whatsoever.
Also conveniently ignored is that both Ford and GM each import nearly 200,000 vehicles themselves from different parts of the world, more if you include Canada. This puts them 2nd and 3rd behind Toyota as auto importers.
OHC designs predate pushrods, so they are more "stone age" that pushrods are. And how exactly due pushrod's stink? GM makes everything from a nice 210hp (more then adequate for most people) V6 that gets gas mileage equivalent to a 4 banger, to a 500hp V8 that outperforms almost anything. And please don't bring that hp/l crap in here.
A broad statement with no supporting facts. Please provide one graph or citation with proof of your unfounded statement. Not someone's opinion. Otherwise your statement is nothing more than an ill-informed opinion of 'why things aren't the way I'd like them to be'.
This is just a 'pixie-dust' argument. "There must be some reason that the Japanese companies are beating the Detroit-based ones but I cant figure it out so it must be 'pixie-dust'."
In this case since the Japanese transplants are selling better vehicles, with less incentives and at higher prices, using American workers and American materiels they must be using 'pixie dust' to accomplish it.
In turn, whether you will acknowledge it or not, this hurts the American consumer in the long run because it increases the trade deficit, decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks), creates job loss, and encourages our own industry's to invest in places like China, Korea and India to get the same cheap parts and labor that goes into the Japanese cars to begin with.
Nonsensical statement. Vehicle built here do nothing to the trade deficit except possible reduce it.
...decreases the demand for U.S. manufactured goods (cars & trucks),
Here's a direct question for you now. With very little research, not your feelings, what has happened to Lt Truck and Auto production here in N America in the last 20 years?
GM, Ford and DCX should have to compete with the Asian automakers, but they shouldn't have to compete against the Japanese Government too !
Another direct question. How is DCX different than Hyundai or Honda? It's a German company with auto facilities here in the US. Is it that you just 'feel' like it's an American company.
It seems that a lot of your arguments are based on your 'feelings' with no sound basis in fact. Actually there are no facts in your statement only your 'feelings'. This is OK because everyone is entitled to an opinion... even if it is not based on facts. In the 1400's nearly everyone was a 'flat-worlder', maybe things haven't changed much in the intervening 600 years.
The OHV vs OHC debate will gone on forever with each devotee having their own selfrighteous dedication to their motor preference. Last I checked both get you there with four wheels under them.
It's obvious some think companies who are based elsewhere, use suppliers who are actually only US companies and all that goes into the foreign brand car produced here is US made materials. Others believe the companies set up suppliers who are companies to move monies through and get parts for their cars and that part of the pieces are imported.
Others feel that importing a car built partly of parts from Canada or Mexico by a US company is importing a car such as a car built in Japan by Honda.
It's obvious there's no aggreement. Everyone just needs to disagree and quit demanding proof of a statement. It becomes boring.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This is a new and views forum so it's clear that the rules lets say are less stringent for the basis of arguments. One can post anything essentially as long as it's within the confines of good taste.
But... Opinions should be stated as opinions, IMO for example. But broad statements such as 'Everyone knows the world is flat, how can you not see that' is an opinion trying to hide as a fact. It begs to be contested. Similarly 'economic' well-known 'truths' as stated in several posts above beg to be contested, these statements have the same factual basis as the 'flatworlder' arguments. Just making a statement does not make it fact. It's only one person's humble opinion.